Showing posts with label body policing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label body policing. Show all posts
Quote of the Day
"You know, I think Hillary Clinton has more things to worry about than her hemline."—Lady Gaga on "The View" this morning, responding to the criticism made of Secretary of State Clinton's wardrobe and body by Tim Gunn, whom Lady Gaga called a "bully."
Why, Tim Gunn, Why?
[Trigger warning for transmisogyny, gender policing, body policing.]
Fucking hell:
(Yes, expecting Hillary Clinton to give a fuck about "sending a message about American fashion" while meeting with foreign dignitaries is outrageous, or the word has lost all meaning.)
I could spend the rest of the day debunking the heaping shitloads of garbage embedded within Gunn's and Lopez's exchange (of which there is video at the link, if you're inclined to protract the agony), but I wouldn't say anything I haven't said a thousand times before. Fuck it.
I will instead just note that when a woman stands up and says, "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all," and then says, fifteen years later, "Human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights," thus allying herself with a ginormous swath of the fashion industry in a fight for recognition of our basic personhood, anyone who gives a flying flunderton if she wears a goddamn potato sack for the rest of her days, no less sneers at her cankles in a fit of misogynistic and objectifying and dehumanizing pique, is an asshole of epic proportions.
And, seriously, if you look at this AP photo of Clinton with other foreign ministers and officials at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Bali last Saturday—
—and its most important aspect to you is how her suit fits, you have lost the plot.
Fucking hell:
Apparently, it never gets old to mock Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "cankles" and pantsuits, at least if you're Tim Gunn and George Lopez, who took the sexist trash-talking to the next level on Lopez's show last night.1. That is not in the job description of the Secretary of State. 2. This is the exact reason why it's bullshit when ostensibly progressive publications lay into female candidates for spending money on their appearance: The expectations on women in the public sphere are outrageous.
...After paying lip service to Clinton's actual accomplishments, Gunn demanded, "Why must she dress that way? I think she's confused about her gender!" He added, "No, I'm really serious, she wears pantsuits that are unflattering." Then it went on to "cankles."
Gunn finished, "I have great respect for her intellect and her tenacity and for what she does for our country in her governmental role. I just wish she could send a stronger message about American fashion."
(Yes, expecting Hillary Clinton to give a fuck about "sending a message about American fashion" while meeting with foreign dignitaries is outrageous, or the word has lost all meaning.)
I could spend the rest of the day debunking the heaping shitloads of garbage embedded within Gunn's and Lopez's exchange (of which there is video at the link, if you're inclined to protract the agony), but I wouldn't say anything I haven't said a thousand times before. Fuck it.
I will instead just note that when a woman stands up and says, "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all," and then says, fifteen years later, "Human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights," thus allying herself with a ginormous swath of the fashion industry in a fight for recognition of our basic personhood, anyone who gives a flying flunderton if she wears a goddamn potato sack for the rest of her days, no less sneers at her cankles in a fit of misogynistic and objectifying and dehumanizing pique, is an asshole of epic proportions.
And, seriously, if you look at this AP photo of Clinton with other foreign ministers and officials at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Bali last Saturday—
—and its most important aspect to you is how her suit fits, you have lost the plot.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for misogyny, racism, body policing, heterocentrism, gender essentialism, rape culture.]
Holy Shit: 10 Things Men Find Unattractive.
Don't let the genericism of the title fool you: This is no standard-issue entry in the Worst Thing series, which has featured a number of "Listen Up, Ladies"-type pieces. This piece is uniquely awful in its extraordinarily detailed criticism of women who fail to conform with the author's ("men's") expectations.
The author, nativenotes, a Black man ostensibly directing his "advice" primarily at Black women (but finding the most receptive audience, I imagine, among other men), polices women literally from our heads ("Can we talk about that funky smelling weave with the tracks showing because that's not a good look. Or my natural sisters—who think dry and flaky is the new it do. We ain't feeling you neither.") to our toes ("Chipped nail polish and ashy feet will not be flying either. Talk to the little Asian women and tip them well so you no longer scratch my legs in bed. Thanks.")
The little Asian woman?! Yiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Naturally, everything in between is policed, too, from clothing choices to directions on how to trim our pubic hair.
I was particularly fond of #4: Angry for No Damn Reason. "Some of y'all are taking this feminism thing too far—you're lashing out at men every chance you get and we're tired of it."
You know, I would suggest that if Mr. Nativenotes has found himself on the receiving end of a lot of female anger, he might consider that there may, in fact, be a reason—like, say, writing horseshit articles in which he proudly puts on full display his unrepentant misogyny.
Meanwhile, I imagine there are quite a few men who are none too pleased with his assertion to be speaking for all men, not merely for the heterocentrism and the implication that men are, by nature, misogynist bullies, but also for opening the piece with a disturbing sop to narratives of male sexual aggression and lack of self-control:
My favorite part by a country mile, however, is his friendly closing to all the ladies who have just been given the gift of his sage advice:
[H/T to Shaker Amy.]
Holy Shit: 10 Things Men Find Unattractive.
Don't let the genericism of the title fool you: This is no standard-issue entry in the Worst Thing series, which has featured a number of "Listen Up, Ladies"-type pieces. This piece is uniquely awful in its extraordinarily detailed criticism of women who fail to conform with the author's ("men's") expectations.
The author, nativenotes, a Black man ostensibly directing his "advice" primarily at Black women (but finding the most receptive audience, I imagine, among other men), polices women literally from our heads ("Can we talk about that funky smelling weave with the tracks showing because that's not a good look. Or my natural sisters—who think dry and flaky is the new it do. We ain't feeling you neither.") to our toes ("Chipped nail polish and ashy feet will not be flying either. Talk to the little Asian women and tip them well so you no longer scratch my legs in bed. Thanks.")
The little Asian woman?! Yiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Naturally, everything in between is policed, too, from clothing choices to directions on how to trim our pubic hair.
I was particularly fond of #4: Angry for No Damn Reason. "Some of y'all are taking this feminism thing too far—you're lashing out at men every chance you get and we're tired of it."
You know, I would suggest that if Mr. Nativenotes has found himself on the receiving end of a lot of female anger, he might consider that there may, in fact, be a reason—like, say, writing horseshit articles in which he proudly puts on full display his unrepentant misogyny.
Meanwhile, I imagine there are quite a few men who are none too pleased with his assertion to be speaking for all men, not merely for the heterocentrism and the implication that men are, by nature, misogynist bullies, but also for opening the piece with a disturbing sop to narratives of male sexual aggression and lack of self-control:
Let the record reflect that just because men find said issues unattractive that does not mean we will not attempt to sleep with you. The two are not mutually exclusive; this is a very real disclaimer.Whoa.
My favorite part by a country mile, however, is his friendly closing to all the ladies who have just been given the gift of his sage advice:
Peace and love ladies, I think you're beautiful. I hope you enjoy your weekend and in no way was I trying to offend but a dose of keeping it real is always healthy.Just LOL. I'm not offended; I'm contemptuous.
[H/T to Shaker Amy.]
Today in OH NOES OBESITY CRISIS!
[Trigger warning for fat hatred and body policing; sexual violence.]
Experts: Really obese kids might need foster care.
Provided the Experts who want to separate very fat children from their families take the time to exclude outsized fatness as a symptom of illness or disability, and/or as a side effect of treatment for illness or disability, and seeing aside for a moment fatness as a symptom of poverty, I will note again that are also children who compulsively overeat as an emotional salve. Children (for the most part) cannot access on their own the appropriate tools adults use to process trauma, like therapy.
They can't access "inappropriate" tools adults use to cope with trauma, either; they don't have access to drugs or booze, but they do have access to food—and children in emotional distress can use food to self-medicate.
Several studies have found associations between childhood sexual trauma and childhood and/or adult obesity, especially in girls and women (example). Even a child thought to be overeating out of "boredom" may really be eating out of loneliness or abandonment.
That we know children may self-medicate with food to fill an emotional void left by neglect or abuse means one of our primary concerns for any fat child is the potential that trauma is underlying disordered eating.
To ignore this possibility is to risk subjecting children not merely to the secondary trauma of indifference, but also to deepening wounds, by piling shame about their only coping mechanism on top of the original trauma.
And to ignore the potential of existent but unreported trauma in a child in order to forcibly separate that child from hir family and put hir in the care of strangers (provided the trauma was not of family origin) is to risk profoundly and irreparably exacerbating that trauma.
To assert to be concerned for the "health" of a very fat child with disordered eating while reducing the definition of "health" in its entirety to "physical benchmarks closely hewing to age-based averages," to the exclusion of all emotional concerns (besides, perhaps, "zie might get bullied because our culture hates fat people, so let's make hir skinny!"), is garbage.
This recommendation is garbage.
We have systemic problems. We need systemic solutions.
[H/T to Eastsidekate, who first sent this story to me yesterday. I've since gotten it from about a dozen other Shakers, and thanks to each and every one of you.]
Experts: Really obese kids might need foster care.
Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight? A provocative commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues yes, and its authors are joining a quiet chorus of advocates who say the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases.I love that the only two options for fat children are "forcibly removed from family" or "forcibly subjected to invasive surgery."
It has happened a few times in the United States, and the opinion piece in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association says putting children temporarily in foster care is in some cases more ethical than obesity surgery.
Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital Boston, said the point isn't to blame parents, but rather to act in children's best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can't provide.So, let's say there's a kid who is very fat, and the reason is because hir family lives in abject poverty in a food desert, so zie is consuming too many empty calories in a desperate bid for nutrition that the family can't afford to provide, and doesn't get enough exercise because zie lives in an area with endemic drug-related violence in which open spaces originally designed for play are controlled by gangs, which describes millions of kids in the US, some of whom are very fat, framing that fatness as "parents failing to provide" is, despite the caveat about not placing blame, some straight-up victim-blaming bullshit that, as per usual, tasks individual people (parents) with responsibility for a systemic problem (poverty).
Provided the Experts who want to separate very fat children from their families take the time to exclude outsized fatness as a symptom of illness or disability, and/or as a side effect of treatment for illness or disability, and seeing aside for a moment fatness as a symptom of poverty, I will note again that are also children who compulsively overeat as an emotional salve. Children (for the most part) cannot access on their own the appropriate tools adults use to process trauma, like therapy.
They can't access "inappropriate" tools adults use to cope with trauma, either; they don't have access to drugs or booze, but they do have access to food—and children in emotional distress can use food to self-medicate.
Several studies have found associations between childhood sexual trauma and childhood and/or adult obesity, especially in girls and women (example). Even a child thought to be overeating out of "boredom" may really be eating out of loneliness or abandonment.
That we know children may self-medicate with food to fill an emotional void left by neglect or abuse means one of our primary concerns for any fat child is the potential that trauma is underlying disordered eating.
To ignore this possibility is to risk subjecting children not merely to the secondary trauma of indifference, but also to deepening wounds, by piling shame about their only coping mechanism on top of the original trauma.
And to ignore the potential of existent but unreported trauma in a child in order to forcibly separate that child from hir family and put hir in the care of strangers (provided the trauma was not of family origin) is to risk profoundly and irreparably exacerbating that trauma.
To assert to be concerned for the "health" of a very fat child with disordered eating while reducing the definition of "health" in its entirety to "physical benchmarks closely hewing to age-based averages," to the exclusion of all emotional concerns (besides, perhaps, "zie might get bullied because our culture hates fat people, so let's make hir skinny!"), is garbage.
This recommendation is garbage.
We have systemic problems. We need systemic solutions.
[H/T to Eastsidekate, who first sent this story to me yesterday. I've since gotten it from about a dozen other Shakers, and thanks to each and every one of you.]
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, body policing, disordered eating.]
Actual Headline: So much for the obesity epidemic.
Actual Lede: "Despite the obesity epidemic, North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin, and Academy Award-winning actress Geena Davis are pushing legislation to encourage the media to produce healthier images of women. They say women and girls feel overly pressured to be thin."
There is literally so much wrong with the way the "obesity epidemic" and a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" are juxtaposed here that I hardly know where to begin.
I'll let you tease out all the nuances in comments, and just quickly note my three biggest issues with this construction:
1. Within that headline and lede, there's an implicit suggestion that the cultural imperatives on girls and women to be thin and sexy is somehow a curative against obesity. Obviously, that's problematic for a dozen different reasons, not least of which is its inaccuracy. Our cultural obsession with thinness and the sexualization (and sexual abuse) of girls and women is associated with disordered eating, both compulsive self-denial of food and compulsive eating.
2. Treating a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" as a mutually exclusive concept from concern about the "obesity epidemic," or what I will redefine more appropriately as concern for fat people with disordered eating who need and want help, is dependent not only on treating "positive" and "obese" as opposite concepts, but also on ignoring that the campaign is not just talking about physical healthfulness. To have "more positive images of girls in the media" is to include images of fat female people who are happy and living full lives and serving a greater purpose than the butt of jokes, and to include images of girls and women who are whole beings and not one-dimensional cardboard cut-out sex objects. A lot goes in to creating a woman (or man) with disordered eating. This campaign is one small part of prevention.
3. For fuck's sake, the campaign isn't just about bodies. And OH THE HILARITRAGIC IRONY of an article covering a campaign that seeks to encourage media not to reduce female people to their bodies by talking exclusively about female bodies.
If your takeaway from three powerful and passionate women launching a campaign to diversify the way female people are presented in the media is OH NOES THEY DON'T CARE IF WOMEN GET FAT, you have missed. the. point.
Actual Headline: So much for the obesity epidemic.
Actual Lede: "Despite the obesity epidemic, North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin, and Academy Award-winning actress Geena Davis are pushing legislation to encourage the media to produce healthier images of women. They say women and girls feel overly pressured to be thin."
There is literally so much wrong with the way the "obesity epidemic" and a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" are juxtaposed here that I hardly know where to begin.
I'll let you tease out all the nuances in comments, and just quickly note my three biggest issues with this construction:
1. Within that headline and lede, there's an implicit suggestion that the cultural imperatives on girls and women to be thin and sexy is somehow a curative against obesity. Obviously, that's problematic for a dozen different reasons, not least of which is its inaccuracy. Our cultural obsession with thinness and the sexualization (and sexual abuse) of girls and women is associated with disordered eating, both compulsive self-denial of food and compulsive eating.
2. Treating a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" as a mutually exclusive concept from concern about the "obesity epidemic," or what I will redefine more appropriately as concern for fat people with disordered eating who need and want help, is dependent not only on treating "positive" and "obese" as opposite concepts, but also on ignoring that the campaign is not just talking about physical healthfulness. To have "more positive images of girls in the media" is to include images of fat female people who are happy and living full lives and serving a greater purpose than the butt of jokes, and to include images of girls and women who are whole beings and not one-dimensional cardboard cut-out sex objects. A lot goes in to creating a woman (or man) with disordered eating. This campaign is one small part of prevention.
3. For fuck's sake, the campaign isn't just about bodies. And OH THE HILARITRAGIC IRONY of an article covering a campaign that seeks to encourage media not to reduce female people to their bodies by talking exclusively about female bodies.
If your takeaway from three powerful and passionate women launching a campaign to diversify the way female people are presented in the media is OH NOES THEY DON'T CARE IF WOMEN GET FAT, you have missed. the. point.